The Uselesness of Flamethrowers

[Altherix]

OP has limited imagination and believes wars are only fought on an open field with two armies facing each other, IMO.

As been posted, it's a tool that's very effective in clearing out entrenched enemies in foxholes, caves...etc vs sending in troops. It's ineffective in that you have a huge explosive device on your back, think huge bullseye for the enemy.

The military is in the process of developing flaming-bouncing-balls of doom though, so the concept hasn't been lost, just upgraded.

 

[Gudrests]

le snip

And now its a war crime...Still a very efficent weapon

May I ask what chapter of what agreement?

And it also depends on which countries actually signed that agreement. Remember, the definition of crime is breaking the law, and the law is not universal, even for war... no matter how some may act. Well, unless if one country is defeated and occupied and have another jurisdiction's laws imposed on it.

Though I understand if 80% of the countries sign a charter declaring something a war crime, the last 20% pretty much have to abide by that, even if they haven't signed it they need to keep fairly good relations with the other 80%. Though I think in the case of the USA at least, they voluntarily removed their stock of flame-throwers. This is good PR, makes it seem like it was their idea and legally they can bring back flame-throwers if they REALLY need them.

I'd still contend that flame-throwers in general are no longer used, not INITIALLY due to "legality", but practicality. It was probably when it became impractical, that is when it became a target for banning since no one saw the point in defending it.

Rationally they'd make using firearms a war crime and force people to fight with melee weapons, that would reduce suffering and death, but firearms are INCREDIBLY useful for wining wars, by ALL sides so none want them gone. Also, the one side who breaks the rules has an INCREDIBLE advantage.

Many arms control agreements are less to do with altruism and more with self interest. Countries with large foot mobile armies are in favour of banning land mines because hell it makes their invading places easier. That's why US opposed the universal land-mine ban. It is the massive amount of land mines in Korea's DMZ that is the main defence against invasion by North Korea's MUCH larger conscription army.

I think it has something to do with what will happen to the person if they get hit...if your hit with a flamethrower....just once..and even an extremly small bit..you ARE catching on fire...and that part of your body is forever runined. no questions asked. Flame throwers in my oppinion are worse than IED's (damage to person wise) because as soon as there touched...thats it. life is near over no matter what

 

[Weslebear]

Ever play Killing Floor? The flamethrower pretty much snipes on that game =D.

 

[The Evil Foxy]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

Flamethrowers were designed as a way to stop tanks, and clear fortifications without having to use explosives. A flamethrower had a 75 yard range, further than you could throw a grenade into a pillbox, fox hole, tunnel, etc.

Anti tank wepon...

and they look totally awesome

I can't help but to wonder, where do you keep pulling out the idea that a flamethrower is an Anti-Tank weapon? Firstly, I remember the flamethrower being an older weapon than any reasonable armored vehicle. Secondly, why do we have these things called "recoilless rifles" and "anti-tank missiles" if the flamers were anti-tank weapons to start with? We should've invested on making AT flmethrowers instead of those silly rocket propelled shaped charges. Unlike in a few games I could mention: Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 and Men of War, flamethrowers are hardly the weapon of choice to kill tanks with, besides, I don't really see how the flames will render the tank in operable. Melting through armor? Probably not. However...

Molotov cocktails were originally designed as anti-tank weapons. I assume that the heat from the flames could destroy the engine or other finnicky systems, or flames and smoke kill the occupants.

You can thank us Finns for this wonderful tank disposal device. The way they work is that you throw them in the exhaust ports/air intakes/on the engine of the tank. And because the soviet carburator engines of the day leaked petrol like no-body's business, it didn't take much of a spark to light the buggers on fire in the Winter war. The fire would ignite the fuel, render the engine inoperable, smoke/burn out the crew and eventually reach ammunition that, if nothing else, would make the tank very dead. As the war progressed and the engines and tanks along with them became more and more sophisticated the molotov cocktail lost some of its effectiveness, but it's still "better than nothing" weapon if you want to stop tanks.

 

[Koeryn]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

Flamethrowers were designed as a way to stop tanks, and clear fortifications without having to use explosives. A flamethrower had a 75 yard range, further than you could throw a grenade into a pillbox, fox hole, tunnel, etc.

Anti tank wepon...

and they look totally awesome

I can't help but to wonder, where do you keep pulling out the idea that a flamethrower is an Anti-Tank weapon? Firstly, I remember the flamethrower being an older weapon than any reasonable armored vehicle. Secondly, why do we have these things called "recoilless rifles" and "anti-tank missiles" if the flamers were anti-tank weapons to start with? We should've invested on making AT flmethrowers instead of those silly rocket propelled shaped charges. Unlike in a few games I could mention: Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 and Men of War, flamethrowers are hardly the weapon of choice to kill tanks with, besides, I don't really see how the flames will render the tank in operable. Melting through armor? Probably not. However...

Molotov cocktails were originally designed as anti-tank weapons. I assume that the heat from the flames could destroy the engine or other finnicky systems, or flames and smoke kill the occupants.

You can thank us Finns for this wonderful tank disposal device. The way they work is that you throw them in the exhaust ports/air intakes/on the engine of the tank. And because the soviet carburator engines of the day leaked petrol like no-body's business, it didn't take much of a spark to light the buggers on fire in the Winter war. The fire would ignite the fuel, render the engine inoperable, smoke/burn out the crew and eventually reach ammunition that, if nothing else, would make the tank very dead. As the war progressed and the engines and tanks along with them became more and more sophisticated the molotov cocktail lost some of its effectiveness, but it's still "better than nothing" weapon if you want to stop tanks.

It wasn't anti-tank in the sense that propelled shaped charges are used. It was anti-tank in the same way it was anti-emplacement: Tanks had holes, gun ports, viewing slits, vents. Flame throwers went through those holes and killed the people inside, turning said tank into nothing but an oven. This had the fringe benefit of also cooking off internal ammunition caches.

 

[Doclector]

Close quarters, burning down fortifications, overheating mechanized units, that sort of thing.

And the psychological effect is immense, everyone's gonna want to run for the hills from that thing.

 

[The Evil Foxy]

It wasn't anti-tank in the sense that propelled shaped charges are used. It was anti-tank in the same way it was anti-emplacement: Tanks had holes, gun ports, viewing slits, vents. Flame throwers went through those holes and killed the people inside, turning said tank into nothing but an oven. This had the fringe benefit of also cooking off internal ammunition caches.

Those slits/ports/holes were quite small in any proper tank for a good reason, why would anyone build big holes into armor you don't want anything getting through? If you used the flamer from a distance, the small flames would hardly cause any real danger to the crew. And if you came close enough to stick the darned flamer into the port/whatever, you're close enough to use real anti-tank weapons anyway so why bother. Besides, it would require some serious courage for a infantry man to sneak up to a tank to do that, and sneaking around with that huge fuel tank on your back isn't exactly easy. This MIGHT'VE been possible in the day of the WW2 tank, but considering the advanced viewing equipment of the modern tank (infra-red, night-wision etc.) I just don't see this "tank oven" scenario happening, because the tank would notice, aim and kill the dude long before he'd be anywhere near to use his weapon. Personally, I'd refrain from calling the flamethrower an "anti-tank weapon" because it really isn't that.

 

[Treblaine]

I think it has something to do with what will happen to the person if they get hit...if your hit with a flamethrower....just once..and even an extremly small bit..you ARE catching on fire...and that part of your body is forever runined. no questions asked. Flame throwers in my oppinion are worse than IED's (damage to person wise) because as soon as there touched...thats it. life is near over no matter what

hmm, comparisons with IED aside, flame-throwers are not that deadly or debilitating, especially with modern medical treatment.

Modern uniforms and equipment are flame retardant, that means they won't "catch alight" they will only burn if added to something else that is burning. So if a jet of burning napalm catches you on the shoulder only your shoulder will get burned. Napalm does not flow, it is very sticky. You will be out of the fight for sure, that is easily 10% of your skin with a 3rd degree burn but you won't be crippled for life, especially after skin grafts. I wouldn't go for a sun tan but you can still walk, still clothe and feed yourself, still work in most jobs to earn a living. Not like a triple-amputee as with IED victims.

most burns also do not come with chronic or debilitating pain, an unusual side effect of severe burns is they hurt LESS than minor burns like scalds from boiling water. See a scald damages cells, but doesn't destroy them. A third degree burn DESTROYS nerve cells, so the area becomes quite numb. When it comes to "triage" the burn victims with highest priority are those with the highest burn area but least pain. You should be VERY worried about a burn that doesn't hurt that much, especially from electric shocks as those are often narrow and very deep all through the body yet painless while prone to infection and bleeding.

IEDs and in fact all explosives are much more debilitating as with limbs blown off and/or you pelvis/back shattered you are really crippled and likely need professional care for the rest of your life. Also, explosion injuries are often far more painful as if a limb is crushed or ripped off it shreds the nerves and shatters bone. Then there are the psychological issues of phantom limb combined with the pain, amputees are often much worse off than burn victims.

And that's not factoring brain damage, usually very severe from explosions, is incredibly hard to treat and can be far more difficult for a soldier to adjust back to life after conflict than even if they have severe facial burns and the "gross factor" from that.

In fact, screw banning flame weapons, ban high-explosives!

But... I think people have a hard time comprehending how bad explosions are, people understand fire, everyone has an innate fear of being burned by flame. All of us have been burned at one point even if it's just a small scald... minds can only wonder how much worse it would be all over their body and burnt to a charcoal. That's probably why flame weapons are out, a case of innate emotions over practical aims.

Just don't have the idea that causing casualties with high-explosives is more humane than flame, very little about war is "humane" and really... is there ANY good way to get killed/injured on the battlefield?

 

[Estocavio]

Well, they slowly burn to death, as their skin peels from their body and their agonising screams echo in your ears... And im a pyromaniac.

 

[furry-ryuu-ken]

Well at least it puts good use to the quote

KILL IT, WITH FIRE!!! HAHAHAHAH

 

[Daipire]

Ripped through bunkers and trenches right well in the WWs.

 

[Treblaine]

It wasn't anti-tank in the sense that propelled shaped charges are used. It was anti-tank in the same way it was anti-emplacement: Tanks had holes, gun ports, viewing slits, vents. Flame throwers went through those holes and killed the people inside, turning said tank into nothing but an oven. This had the fringe benefit of also cooking off internal ammunition caches.

Those slits/ports/holes were quite small in any proper tank for a good reason, why would anyone build big holes into armor you don't want anything getting through? If you used the flamer from a distance, the small flames would hardly cause any real danger to the crew. And if you came close enough to stick the darned flamer into the port/whatever, you're close enough to use real anti-tank weapons anyway so why bother. Besides, it would require some serious courage for a infantry man to sneak up to a tank to do that, and sneaking around with that huge fuel tank on your back isn't exactly easy. This MIGHT'VE been possible in the day of the WW2 tank, but considering the advanced viewing equipment of the modern tank (infra-red, night-wision etc.) I just don't see this "tank oven" scenario happening, because the tank would notice, aim and kill the dude long before he'd be anywhere near to use his weapon. Personally, I'd refrain from calling the flamethrower an "anti-tank weapon" because it really isn't that.

Koeryn is right and wrong, flames were used against tanks but not flame-throwers.

The flame used against tanks is usually a runny fluid (NOT Napalm) that flows through even tiny cracks and is not ignited in the air (where most of it burns in the air*).

Think of the "molotov cocktail" concept, aka Petrol bomb. And even then, Soviet Soldiers were trained to aim it at the engine compartment where the exposed radiator was. The burning liquid fuel seeps over the engine, burning the exposed rubber components to disable it and hopefully igniting the lubrication oil which would destroy the entire engine. So in a few seconds a mobility kill and as the engine seizes up, and the crew had about a minute to escape before the tank's fuel line ruptures and the entire inside filled with burning diesel.

Modern tanks have automated extinguishers but in the early 1940's it was a very effective way of destroying a tank... if you could get close enough to break a bottle over the engine bay! Now the main method is a mobility kill with rocket propelled shaped charges as once you know the threat of petrol bombs it's easy to make tanks fire proof. Much harder to make them explosion-proof.

Though I hear a very effective tactic against tanks (though disturbing) is to fill a backpack with literally as much explosives as you can and sprint at the tank, giving it a bear hug before blowing yourself up! Horrifying I know, but Iran did it a lot in the Iran-Iraq war and spaced/reactive armour is no defence against 40lbs of high explosives detonated on contact, the steel tank just gets ripped apart and flipped over. That's the power of high explosives. It proved to be very effective though seems to be the origin of contemporary terrorists' suicide-bomber tactics, which is not so cool.

(*due to how flame throwers burn most of the fuel in the air they are more "heat-throwers" than flame throwers, as the fuel has mostly burned in the air and the target just gets quickly cooked, little fuel actually gets the chance to soak into and burn the target.)

 

[Anezay]

They are psychological weapons. Burning to death is a lot worse than being shot.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

What exactly is the point of flamethrowers? A machine gun will kill ordinary people much faster for less weight, and its not much good against zombies because the avereage human body will burn for at least an hour.

Seriously? Did you just post this without looking anything up beforehand or is it just confusing. Flamethrowers where designed to clear trench systems in WW1. And that doesn't even cover the fear part. Imagine being burned alive till death or being shot and killed. I'll take the bleeding out over burning alive thanks. Also true flame throwers fire liquid fire which sticks to you and continues to burn not just flame which you can pass through without harm.

"flamethrower" roughly translates as "best way of shoveling snow ever"

Yes. I totally agree with this as well. Where i live in the winter sometimes thats the best way to shovel the snow. Tiger torches!

 

[Koeryn]

It wasn't anti-tank in the sense that propelled shaped charges are used. It was anti-tank in the same way it was anti-emplacement: Tanks had holes, gun ports, viewing slits, vents. Flame throwers went through those holes and killed the people inside, turning said tank into nothing but an oven. This had the fringe benefit of also cooking off internal ammunition caches.

Those slits/ports/holes were quite small in any proper tank for a good reason, why would anyone build big holes into armor you don't want anything getting through? If you used the flamer from a distance, the small flames would hardly cause any real danger to the crew. And if you came close enough to stick the darned flamer into the port/whatever, you're close enough to use real anti-tank weapons anyway so why bother. Besides, it would require some serious courage for a infantry man to sneak up to a tank to do that, and sneaking around with that huge fuel tank on your back isn't exactly easy. This MIGHT'VE been possible in the day of the WW2 tank, but considering the advanced viewing equipment of the modern tank (infra-red, night-wision etc.) I just don't see this "tank oven" scenario happening, because the tank would notice, aim and kill the dude long before he'd be anywhere near to use his weapon. Personally, I'd refrain from calling the flamethrower an "anti-tank weapon" because it really isn't that.

Your right that it'd be useless against modern tanks, but against the armored vehicles of WWI and II, they weren't exactly ineffective. Tanks were mobile emplaced positions, and flamethrowers were designed to clear emplaced positions.

 

[Silver Patriot]

Spoiler: Regarding Flamethrowers

They have their uses, but mostly they are a good scare tactic. Also good for tight spaces.

 

[The Evil Foxy]

Your right that it'd be useless against modern tanks, but against the armored vehicles of WWI and II, they weren't exactly ineffective. Tanks were mobile emplaced positions, and flamethrowers were designed to clear emplaced positions.

The drivers are still sitting inside a metal cocoon. There's no real way you could expose the crew/ammunition to the flames effectively if the tank has been made after the year 1917. You still need to get darn close to the tank even if your intention is to light its engine on fire, because every other part of the vehicle is pretty much impervious to the flames. On the open battlefield, climbing on a functioning tank to burn its engine is some hollywood Rambo stuff. Given that the tank is immobilized, then one could have some chance. In an urban environment, it might be possible given the ammount of highground and cover for the infantryman, but still, hardly an effective tactic to be using constantly on the front.

 

[Mr C]

[/quote]

Also, you can't cause a flamethrower to explode just by shooting the tank. The fire produced comes from a mixture of two chemicals that are rather innate by their self.

[/quote]

If this site had it, I would give you +rep for saying the gastank doesn't explode when shot. Too many people still think that

And I'll agree with what basically everybody else said around now: Flamers are used for scaring enemies and killing those entrenched positions.[/quote]

I'll second that, it's something I never knew. Damn you Speilberg, bastard claims he's making things authentic, I remember the part in the Normandy landings of Saving Private Ryan when a flame thrower tank explodes (perhaps even twice!).

 

[nepheleim]

I've heard of schools (and not even military schools at that) using flamethrowers as a means of dealing with the local africanized honeybee populations in south america. So, despite what every school administrator has ever said, you can protect school children by playing with fire.

 

[nepheleim]

Oh, and flamethrowers work against tanks by using up the available oxygen around. While the crew may not burn to death, a lack of O2 will make up for it.